Will Strictly Ever Combat Wrong Decisions And Are There Any Solutions?

This weekend saw another woefully wrong decision with Deborah voted off whilst the likes of Rachel and particularly Dave avoided the dance off. Who is to blame and how can such decisions be avoided?

Firstly, the British public are to blame for ringing in to vote to save the clearly weakest dancer Dave on the grounds that he is funny - first and foremost this is a dance contest. However, the BBC themselves are even more culpable as they always choose the celebs and always choose a clown figure or one to be ridiculed who they know aren't going to make great dancers. In the past we have seen Ann Widdecombe and John Sargeant to name but a few so they are just begging for trouble doing this. As long as the BBC insist on including potential joke figures then they risk sabotaging the show's credibility with decision we saw last night.

As for combating such wrong decisions well there are only three ways in my opinion. Firstly, the BBC choose celebs who aren't odds on to become a joke act. Or secondly, a change in the voting system where the phoning public counts for less points at the end of the day ie Judge's scores count for 75% of scoring system and British public account for 25%. Or finally, and this will never happen, it is merely the judges that score and the bottom two in judges scores go into the dance-off.

Sadly I don't think there ever will be a solution CC - as long as the ratings figures are up then they will not make any changes because that is the sole measure of success that they use. I still support having the Dance Off as part of the show because it gives it edge and there is the 'will they won't they' element that I think has to be there, even when it results in the upset that we had last night.

There are a few annoyances about SCD which I think would make for a more level playing field and not lose the 'entertainment' element - one is making sure there is a strict latin one week and ballroom the next pattern - I think that at the moment it can be engineered that a couple gets an 'extra week' by tinkering around with what dances they do at which point in the contest, also we never get to know what the voting percentage actually is, which also I suppose heightens the 'mystery' but it is quite possible that on some weeks it is lowish for all couples - we would never know.

I did think this year that there might be a backlash against Dave by GBP on the grounds of 'having seen it all before' - but clearly not and until that happens then they won't change anything. Someone on this forum - I think it might have been Fiftynotout said at the beginning that the familiar pattern would happen with everyone loving Dave on the first few weeks and then suddenly turning him into public enemy number one to be taken outside and shot (metaphorically) Never was a truer word spoken!!!!!

Yes I realise that as things stand viewing figures are sky high so situations that occurred yesterday are immaterial to the BBC. It just irks me and always has me thinking how it can be avoided. Another way is perhaps having the judges get two scoring votes. One score out of ten judging dance ability and the other for interpretation/choreography and that way more points for the genuine dancers and less chance for the joke acts to survive.

Yes I would love there to be two scores - one for technical ability and one for artistic interpretation - it would be a great addition and balance things out more. I also think it would be good to have a 'technical challenge' week to counterbalance the theme weeks - as they do in DOI. As I always say, entertainment and great dancing are not mutually exclusive!

I think I'm with mauve on this one CC. My main fear if they changed the voting system and eliminated the 'popular' acts, it that it might affect the ratings, and hence the budget etc.
I haven't enjoyed watching Dave since week 2, but evidently he still entertains a lot more viewers than Patrick and Deborah. I begrudgingly have to accept that there's a ratings-formula to Strictly which includes characters like Dave, Widdie, Nancy etc. I'm assuming that a lot of children watch the show, and they're probably loving the panto acts - they probably also help to keep the ratings up.

Actually, I'm one of the guilty parties! I voted for Rachel at the weekend, and not for Deborah. Whilst I do think it's a real shame that Deborah went out, I'd vote the same way again...purely a personal preference ( I still think Rachel has more potential, if only Pasha could find it). I definitely agree with mauve's suggestion for a technical element - thought that worked well on DOI. 

Overall though, I think the balance of power between the public and judges is about right at the moment - if the public vote held less weight then I think many people may not bother voting at all.  In an ideal world though,  what I'd like to see is one viewer, one vote - but that won't happen either!

As upsetting as it was to see Deborah leave, despite not being the worst dancer (or even the second worst dancer), I wouldn't like to give the judges more power and the viewers less. In my opinion, the judges have too much power as it is, what with the dance-off.

I want Dave out asap but if he's still entertaining enough people that they want to see more of him then that's way it goes. I used to vote for John Sergeant every single week right up until he stood down. And I would again because even though he was the weakest dancer, I got so much more out of his performances than one of Cherie Lunghi's or Heather Small's or Andrew Castle's. We were asked to vote for our 'favourites' and that's what I did and that's what Dave's fans are doing.

Dave won't win. He won't come close. He'll outstay a few celebs who are better dancers than him but everyone knows what they're letting themselves in for when they sign up to participate (or sign up to watch in our case).

I feel two sets of marks would help one for technical skils & one for for artistic perception of the dance. It would help better dancers & also stop some of the comedy acts.However the simplest way is add a 0.5 score stop couples tying & the public votes decide the bottom two. We can then either re vote again (free votes) to save one couple or the lowest scoring couple just go.

We have this debate every year and I still love it!  
My suggestion is as always: if the scores are tied, the judges must then rank them and not duck the issue by having a big load in the middle. The public then vote. If say there are 10 couples left and they are scored (ranked)from 1-10. Same is done with voting and scored (ranked) 1-10 according to %. These are then added together and voila! A bottom 2 appears. Dance off as normal ....

But as long as in the Beeb's eyes it ain't broke, they won't fix it.
 

Great idea Allse - I think there have been far too many tied scores on the leaderboard creating that 'mass' in the middle!

allsewnonbyhand wrote::   
My suggestion is as always: if the scores are tied, the judges must then rank them and not duck the issue by having a big load in the middle.
 

But there are a load in the middle.................Ben, Patrick, Fiona and Rachel are all at similar levels of crapness regarding dancing and should be equally scored.
Deborah would have been included amongst these but she failed because she had neither dance ability or personality. It is then up to the public to decide who they want to see next week.

I don't agree actually. I think that Patrick is currently better than Ben and Fiona and probably has more potential than Rachel. Whether he'll ever get the opportunity to realise it is another matter. I think that he may get caught in the "Jimi Mistry" trap. Too good for people to think that he needs saving, but not good enough that his performance stands out and attracts votes. And no personal vote to speak of, I guess. I do think that the judges fudge the issue by lumping so many celebs in the middle. It seems to have got worse over the last two or three years, but that might be just me remembering the "good old days".

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Firstly, the British public are to blame for ringing in to vote to save the clearly weakest dancer Dave on the grounds that he is funny - first and foremost this is a dance contest.

The trouble is that first and foremost Strictly is not a dance contest. First and foremost it is a light entertainment show that utilises the format of a dance contest. We aren't asked to vote for the best dancers, we're asked to vote for our favourites. The BBC don't give two pins about ensuring that the best dancer wins - they want acts that will pull in the punters and deliver on the viewing figures. At this stage of the series that seems to be Dave.

There was once a "proper" dance competition on the BBC - "Come Dancing". Discontinued because not enough people watched it. I'd love to have a "proper" dance competition on the BBC - or just some more coverage of the contests that exist - but I guess I'm in a minority.

Much as I (mostly) enjoy watching Strictly, I don't ever kid myself that I'm watching a serious dance contest.

Tina I am in that minority too! I would love Come Dancing back on our screens.

Maybe we should start a campaign, Saxo! Bring back Come Dancing!

Very good post Tina and you are, of course, correct. Sadly, I do want or expect too much for Strictly to be primarily about dance ability. I will still enjoy watching Strictly but will have to accept it with its flaws.

I think thet good dancing always wins out in the end when we get to the very latter stages or 'business end' of the contest - to be fair to GBP any one that has hung on past their 'sell-by' date is usually swiftly despatched at this stage but getting there can be tortuous and fraught with some controversy/injustices every year! Perhaps that's why we keep avidly watching???

mauveangel09 wrote:I think thet good dancing always wins out in the end when we get to the very latter stages or 'business end' of the contest - to be fair to GBP any one that has hung on past their 'sell-by' date is usually swiftly despatched at this stage but getting there can be tortuous and fraught with some controversy/injustices every year!  Perhaps that's why we keep avidly watching???

Yes the 'shock' exists to bring a bit of drama don't they! It would be a bit predictable and boring if every week the couple right at the bottom got eliminated. No one would bother tuning in for the results! I think Strictly shows that you have to capture people's interests not just with your dancing abilities but with your personality, the chemistry with your partner, the right choreography, music, outfit etc - all sorts of factors influence the voting. And I'm okay with that.

Sid wrote:And I'm okay with that.

Me too.

And, for me, it changes week on week.  

I love the way Natalie dances, I love her big earthy laugh but I sincerely hope she isn't in the final.

Mark, so far, is growing on me more and more.

Deborah went downhill after her quickstep and completely lost me with the table fiasco.

I was even warming to Julien by the time he left.

And I still can't predict a final three - another reason to keep watching.

I used to get very wound up with conspiracy theories about all sorts of things - biased VT editing, predetermined judges scores, results being engineered, couples getting more/less airtime etc etc. I'm sort of embarrassed now about getting so uptight about a light entertainment show! Although I'm still quite dubious about BBC interference, I'm a lot more mellow about what seem to be 'wrong decisions' . Maybe it's the cyclical nature of the controversies - we've been there, done that, and it's no longer quite as outrageous.

This year I still haven't found a favourite (other than Julien), and find it quite relaxing just to enjoy the show and accept the results, even when I don't agree with them. Precluding injury, I think it's a cert that Natalie will be in the final. I hope that Abbey makes it there as well, I think she's been overshadowed a bit by Sophie. But at the end of the day, I'm very much in the 'que sera' frame of mind this year, and probably wouldn't even mind that much if Dave won it.

Maybe Jingle complacancy has set in with us all? Could be its been on a while no fresh format or overhaul of the show.I still like Suzanna/Abby/Ben but not one overall favourite.Does this indicate we the fans need a break from SCD? Or the BBC try a different formula ie Easter next year a Mature celebs SCD then followed later by the fitter young celebs? It would have been lovely to have seen mature celebs all blosdom over the ten weeks (12 couples only) Or pit the pro celeb couples against each other & other professional dancers! A true ballroom competition-Tis simples but a wow factor possible!

Here you go Sax. How do you fancy this?

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s104/strictly-come-dancing/news/a527731/strictly-come-dancing-zoe-ball-calls-for-non-celebrity-spin-off.html

saxonsiren wrote:Maybe Jingle complacancy has set in with us all? Could be its been on a while no fresh format or overhaul of the show.I still like Suzanna/Abby/Ben but not one overall favourite.Does this indicate we the fans need a break from SCD? Or the BBC try a different formula ie Easter next year a Mature celebs SCD then followed later by the fitter young celebs? It would have been lovely to have seen mature celebs all blosdom over the ten weeks (12 couples only) Or pit the pro celeb couples against each other & other professional dancers! A true ballroom competition-Tis simples but a wow factor possible!

As has already been said as long as viewers continue to watch in their millions the format will not be changed. I don't have a problem with the celebs on show this year as they are no real different (in make-up) to any other year. As for a Seniors Strictly I'd be for that but would we not then get shouts of ageism from the PC brigade? People here know what I think needs changed but sadly I have to agree with those that pointed out to me that nothing will change as long as Strictly has millions of viewers.

Ginger its a brilliant idea & Im sure a lot of people have been banging on about change for years.Yes CC its all been said & debated over previously & Im sure next year we willbang on about the same things .Ageisim hasn't been reared before when pitting Widdy/JS/Johnny Ball/Esther Ranzen/TonyJacklin against Aleisha/Rachel Stevens/Louis Smith/Louisa/Tom Chambers so I cannot see how a Strictly Senior SCD could come under fire? BGT pits children against teenagers against Grandmas against dancing dogs-no ageisim or complaints animal v human there!

We need a format change YES & soon please.

sax, by ageism I mean some would see segragating age groups ie splitting the seniors into their own series unable to compete against younger couples. That would bring accusations of ageism (in this insanelt PC age we live in)believe you me.

True CC this weird PC correct silly nonsense may see it like that! Beaurocratic nonsense